IS SEALS WITH CLUBS DONKDOWN??? (Update: Micon charged with a felony in Nevada)

[simpdog]

http://vegasinc.com/business/gaming/...-pleads-guilt/

Cliffs: plead guilty today, sentencing at a later date.

So nothing new here.

Will be interesting once they set the probation though. If they know he's a weed smoker will they specifically say no drugs? OR will they try to for a casino ban of some sort?

[garrett]

http://vegasinc.com/business/gaming/...-pleads-guilt/

Cliffs: plead guilty today, sentencing at a later date.

So nothing new here.

Will be interesting once they set the probation though. If they know he's a weed smoker will they specifically say no drugs? OR will they try to for a casino ban of some sort?

Absolutely not.

And this really is where you sort of 'get what you pay for' in hiring very good attorneys. Since he is not charged with a drug offense, and drugs were not a part of this case in anyway that should be the easiest stipulation for a lawyer like these guys to get removed. Simply because it wasn't a function of the case, at all whatsoever.

Had they of busted him for marijuana also, or he had prior drug convictions MAYBE ( not even sure if then) but no way he gets random drug UA's as a part of probation for a gaming offense. I mean its technically possible but with his type of attorneys that would be a major fuck up, and with Micon, just setting him up to fail adventually.

.02c

[TheXFactor]

Bryan Adam Micon is now a convicted felon and must register his current address within 48 hours with the Las Vegas Metro Police, failure to do so is a misdemeanor under Nevada law.

I think all convicted felons had to carry a pink card with them at all times, that had the offense they were charged with and if you were visiting or live in Nevada, you must go down to the police department and give them the address that you are staying at.
If you don't and you are pulled over by the police, they take you to jail.

How long before Micon fucks up and goes back to jail/prison?

[BeerAndPoker]

From the VegasInc article:

His sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 3.

I'm sure they will be watching Micon closely over the next four months.

[blubbernuffle]

this thread is this
drama ensues

[Forum Wars]

Jimmy to the left, jimmy to the right...this is so much fun! Our boy really did seem to be havin some fun before it got desperate and he needed 100K on GoFundMe.

Jolly Beach indeed...

[bukowski72]

Possible cheating on SWC. I bet micon is very happy one of the posts mentions the guy e-mailed micon.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...eated-1545749/


Someone quoted this -- is this from Tom?

"Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015
To: bryan micon <micon@swcpoker.eu>
Subject: Re: swcpoker.com

You fail to understand one thing even IF I lose a wipo or udrp you will lose a case in US court, that simple. It cost me nothing to defend my friend is one of the best domain dispute lawyers anywhere. $1k is far from fair man. Will you come back and explain to a US court you should have the name? I mean think big picture Bryan, you could lose it all over what? Any way bottom line 150 btc or go ahead and file, this will be fun and great exposure for you when I halt the decision if I lost and media starts. Furthermore who the hell is it in higher limits who sit there and rape people. You know what, time for a blog, domain is not for sale.
Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell. "

[sonatine]

looks like we found out how micon is paying off his legal fees.

[Dan Druff]

Some small background, I've played a ton of poker both live and online, and mostly all mix games for the last few years. I consider myself a very good 2-7 player. My friend who also plays on seals is also an excellent deuce player who plays very large.

I started playing on the new seals about as soon as it opened and did quite well, the 2-7 games were so good they were very hard to lose. I had a few big losses to people playing quite absurd but that happens. However, I played a session vs player in question heads up deuce at 40-80 or 60-120 and he absolutely crushed me. It felt very strange though, like he could see my cards. Basically he just owned my life in every 1-1 spot on the end in absurd situations. I catch and Ace, he "value bet" a King, every time I made top pair he would check call or check raise in 1-1 spots, and he had absurd aggression leading up to the river. Stuff that would make absolutely no sense unless you could murder your opponent.

Without going into to much details, he was the worst person I've ever played in heads up deuce and he crushed me, I couldn't wait to play him the next day. Later that night my friend texted me that he just got murdered by the same player in the most bizarre fashion and that it seemed like he could see his cards.
I found this highly suspicious as we both think the exact same thing in the same day about the same player.
A few hands for background, twice my friend bluffed the river in 2-7 with a pair of 8s and got called by a pair of 6s and a pair of 7s. That makes the pot ripper 9-10 call look standard. Other times he would fold in 1-1 spots. How can you fold in a 1-1 spot and call with 66. Anyways we text back and forth and I kept saying call me crazy but I think he's cheating me and I won't play him anymore.

The next day we are in a 6 handed deuce game and same player is just going off, 3 betting in absurd spots and playing with crazy aggression, basically raising whenever given the chance.... until I open UTG he 3 bet, I take 2 he takes 1, I check he bets and I call, I take 2 he takes 1. I check and he checks back the 2-1 spot (any decent player bets here 100% of the time so I'd expect a crazy aggressive player to never check), surprisingly I drew 2 to the wheel and he folds the river..... a few hands later he opens UTG and I call in the BB. I take 3 he takes 1. I improve to 2357 and check, he checks back the 3-1 spot......

At this point I texted most people I knew and said be cautious playing him despite being awful. Fast forward a few days later and I sit in a PLO game were unpromted the text in chat was about how this guy got murdered by the same player the previous day and it felt like he could see his cards...


At this point, I felt like I was getting cheated but it could easily just be a fish on a heater in a high variance game so I would just quit him and let it go; However, he was also the highest volume player on the site every single week and all of a sudden he disappeared off the weekly leaderboard which I found odd. Recently a different friend emailed the site about the player in question with suspicions that he was charting somehow. They responded "as to the reason you don’t see player in question we can’t go into details but were aware of the situation and its not because he was challenged in chat... we can't share results of investigations....
we are very viligent about all forms of cheating, please rest assured......

This is extremely worrisome as well given the site basically has no rules and is anonymous so it would be very hard to be banned for anything other than maybe having 2 accounts and playing at the same time, but most of his play was heads up.

Lastly, I really hope they can divulge some info because I won't play there until I know more information. They banned him for something, but he can easily continue to play on the site since you can easily have and fund infinite accounts.

Hopefully I'm just overly paranoid about a fish running like a god vs everyone and then randomly getting banned for some random reason, but I felt like I would share this information.

[tyde]

gotta hand it to Micon

that's a pretty sweet video

Antigua looks beautiful

I wonder if he has any plans to return

[vegas1369]

I'm saying this with literally no programming knowledge whatsoever, but it doesn't seem too far fetched to me that whatever platform SWC was set up on probably wouldn't be the most robust set up security wise, and probably hackable to someone with a decent skill set.

[sonatine]

I'm saying this with literally no programming knowledge whatsoever, but it doesn't seem too far fetched to me that whatever platform SWC was set up on probably wouldn't be the most robust set up security wise, and probably hackable to someone with a decent skill set.

the question of hackable is really no longer appropriate. is it possible it got hacked? sure. but at this point occams razor would suggest someone got phished and the attacker piggy backed in.

providing of course you discard the more obvious occams razor about an 'insider threat', which is a whole lot more likely.

[Muck Ficon]

I'm saying this with literally no programming knowledge whatsoever, but it doesn't seem too far fetched to me that whatever platform SWC was set up on probably wouldn't be the most robust set up security wise, and probably hackable to someone with a decent skill set.

the question of hackable is really no longer appropriate. is it possible it got hacked? sure. but at this point occams razor would suggest someone got phished and the attacker piggy backed in.

providing of course you discard the more obvious occams razor about an 'insider threat', which is a whole lot more likely.

[bukowski72]

I'm saying this with literally no programming knowledge whatsoever, but it doesn't seem too far fetched to me that whatever platform SWC was set up on probably wouldn't be the most robust set up security wise, and probably hackable to someone with a decent skill set.

the question of hackable is really no longer appropriate. is it possible it got hacked? sure. but at this point occams razor would suggest someone got phished and the attacker piggy backed in.

providing of course you discard the more obvious occams razor about an 'insider threat', which is a whole lot more likely.

I would appreciate if you or Drex (or Druff) would comment on the OP's comments about the play. I have only played 2-7 triple draw about 3 times and have no room to comment on the play.

[Dan Druff]

the question of hackable is really no longer appropriate. is it possible it got hacked? sure. but at this point occams razor would suggest someone got phished and the attacker piggy backed in.

providing of course you discard the more obvious occams razor about an 'insider threat', which is a whole lot more likely.

I would appreciate if you or Drex (or Druff) would comment on the OP's comments about the play. I have only played 2-7 triple draw about 3 times and have no room to comment on the play.

Drex is the better 2-7 player than me, but I'll give it a shot.

For those of you that don't know, in 2-7 triple draw, you are trying to make the lowest possible 5-card hand (23457, no flush), and you have three drawing rounds to improve your hand.

In addition to attempting to avoid flushes and straights (which are terrible for obvious reasons), you also need to avoid pairs. If you finish with a pair in your hand, there is a good chance you have the worst hand.

Regarding the drawing, that can be a giveaway that your hand is weak. That is, if you "stand pat" and don't draw anything, you either like your hand or are trying to fool your opponent into thinking you like your hand. If you are drawing something like 3 cards, then your hand is obviously bad, and it's rare that all 3 cards will combine to make your hand good.

A common strategy in 2-7 triple draw is to hammer your opponent who is drawing a lot, assuming that he isn't likely to improve to like his hand much, and you can bet him off his hand without making much yourself. This is the holdem equivalent to betting when checked to, but with an additional dimension.

Going back to what this guy was saying....

He complained of the following (I will refer to his opponent has "the cheater", even though cheating hasn't been proven yet):

1) His friend, who had a pair of 8s after the third draw, tried to bluff the cheater. The cheater called him with a pair of 6s (a bad hand), which was shocking. Then the cheater again called his friend bluffing with 8s, this time holding a pair of 7s. So not only did the cheater call twice while holding a pair, but both times he called with a pair that was slightly lower (i.e. better) than the guy bluffing him.

2) John Locke (the accuser) noticed his opponent was hyper-aggressive, but oddly got super passive or foldy whenever John made a hand, no matter how many cards he drew. In one case, John drew 3 cards and the cheater just drew 1. John lucked out and improved to 2357x on his first draw (a great hand at this point, but his opponent should assume he is super weak), and tried to check-raise. Oddly the cheater checked back despite only drawing 1. Any good/aggressive player is auto-betting there in position when his opponent draws 3 and he only draws 1 card.

3) In another spot, John came within 2 spots of 23457 after the second draw after drawing two cards, with the cheater only drawing 1. John checked, and the cheater checked -- again peculiar for an aggressive player. When John bet the river after lucking into making 23457, the cheater folded.

4) When both players were drawing 1 card (referred to as a "1-1 spot"), the cheater was always getting hyperaggressive if John paired up. In one case, the cheater value bet king high after John's hand worsened by drawing one and getting an ace.

John has over 2,000 posts on 2+2. I think I believe that he was being cheated there.

The question is who did it, and how.

While it's possible that a screengrabber trojan was installed onto the victims' computers (thereby not being SWC's fault), it's also very possible that the cheater cracked the system or the RNG in some way.

For SWC management to stonewall them on the results of the investigation is bullshit, and highly suspicious.

[Muck Ficon]

I would appreciate if you or Drex (or Druff) would comment on the OP's comments about the play. I have only played 2-7 triple draw about 3 times and have no room to comment on the play.

Drex is the better 2-7 player than me, but I'll give it a shot.

For those of you that don't know, in 2-7 triple draw, you are trying to make the lowest possible 5-card hand (23457, no flush), and you have three drawing rounds to improve your hand.

In addition to attempting to avoid flushes and straights (which are terrible for obvious reasons), you also need to avoid pairs. If you finish with a pair in your hand, there is a good chance you have the worst hand.

Regarding the drawing, that can be a giveaway that your hand is weak. That is, if you "stand pat" and don't draw anything, you either like your hand or are trying to fool your opponent into thinking you like your hand. If you are drawing something like 3 cards, then your hand is obviously bad, and it's rare that all 3 cards will combine to make your hand good.

A common strategy in 2-7 triple draw is to hammer your opponent who is drawing a lot, assuming that he isn't likely to improve to like his hand much, and you can bet him off his hand without making much yourself. This is the holdem equivalent to betting when checked to, but with an additional dimension.

Going back to what this guy was saying....

He complained of the following (I will refer to his opponent has "the cheater", even though cheating hasn't been proven yet):

1) His friend, who had a pair of 8s after the third draw, tried to bluff the cheater. The cheater called him with a pair of 6s (a bad hand), which was shocking. Then the cheater again called his friend bluffing with 8s, this time holding a pair of 7s. So not only did the cheater call twice while holding a pair, but both times he called with a pair that was slightly lower (i.e. better) than the guy bluffing him.

2) John Locke (the accuser) noticed his opponent was hyper-aggressive, but oddly got super passive or foldy whenever John made a hand, no matter how many cards he drew. In one case, John drew 3 cards and the cheater just drew 1. John lucked out and improved to 2357x on his first draw (a great hand at this point, but his opponent should assume he is super weak), and tried to check-raise. Oddly the cheater checked back despite only drawing 1. Any good/aggressive player is auto-betting there in position when his opponent draws 3 and he only draws 1 card.

3) In another spot, John came within 2 spots of 23457 after the second draw after drawing two cards, with the cheater only drawing 1. John checked, and the cheater checked -- again peculiar for an aggressive player. When John bet the river after lucking into making 23457, the cheater folded.

4) When both players were drawing 1 card (referred to as a "1-1 spot"), the cheater was always getting hyperaggressive if John paired up. In one case, the cheater value bet king high after John's hand worsened by drawing one and getting an ace.

John has over 2,000 posts on 2+2. I think I believe that he was being cheated there.

The question is who did it, and how.

While it's possible that a screengrabber trojan was installed onto the victims' computers (thereby not being SWC's fault), it's also very possible that the cheater cracked the system or the RNG in some way.

For SWC management to stonewall them on the results of the investigation is bullshit, and highly suspicious.

I could see the trojan thing as a possibility, on one of the players computers, but apparently the cheater was cleaning house on a lot of different players. Cracking the RNG? Possible, but highly unlikely. SWC not sharing the results of the investigation....pretty much a dead give away this was an inside job.

[sonatine]

While it's possible that a screengrabber trojan was installed onto the victims' computers (thereby not being SWC's fault), it's also very possible that the cheater cracked the system or the RNG in some way.

i cant improve on your description of the play, of course, its spot on.

that both locke and his friend were trojaned with screen grabber ware is certainly possible but again, not the most likely explanation.

[Muck Ficon]

While it's possible that a screengrabber trojan was installed onto the victims' computers (thereby not being SWC's fault), it's also very possible that the cheater cracked the system or the RNG in some way.

i cant improve on your description of the play, of course, its spot on.

that both locke and his friend were trojaned with screen grabber ware is certainly possible but again, not the most likely explanation.

And the "cracked the RNG" scenario is also a little far fetched. That would involve knowing all the seed values of the RNG.

[SysOp]

i cant improve on your description of the play, of course, its spot on.

that both locke and his friend were trojaned with screen grabber ware is certainly possible but again, not the most likely explanation.

And the "cracked the RNG" scenario is also a little far fetched. That would involve knowing all the seed values of the RNG.

SWC uses lasers to seed that rng, no?



ahahahaha

[sonatine]

i cant improve on your description of the play, of course, its spot on.

that both locke and his friend were trojaned with screen grabber ware is certainly possible but again, not the most likely explanation.

And the "cracked the RNG" scenario is also a little far fetched. That would involve knowing all the seed values of the RNG.

I think its a bit exotic for this scenario, that said its not necessary to know the seed in all cases.

https://jonasnick.github.io/blog/201...pots-weak-rng/